Offside or Not?

[VM75]

I'd also award the try.

IF white, accidentally (or deliberately for that matter) disadvantages his side by being a 'lazy runner' and interfering with a seemingly genuine attempt by BLUE to continue their attack, then it's tough, don't be there.

We could campaign for an extension of 10.3
"A player who receives an unintentional throw forward or an unintentional or intentional richochet/or playing of the ball off of a lazy/interferring runner opponent is not offside"

or we could leave the laws alone & apply common sense to a rare scenario.

 

[crossref]

Common Sense means different refs make different decisions .. the Law is important

 

[Dickie E]

I'd also award the try.

IF white, accidentally (or deliberately for that matter) disadvantages his side by being a 'lazy runner' and interfering with a seemingly genuine attempt by BLUE to continue their attack, then it's tough, don't be there.

Blue are winning scrum and Red flanker breaks early. Blue SH passes to Blue #10 who is distracted by offside Red flanker running at him. Blue #10 knocks on (ie ball hits ground), but regathers the ball and goes over for the try. Award the try?

 

[Camquin]

No - penalty.
There is a clear knock on by blue so they cannot have further advantage.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'd also award the try.

IF white, accidentally (or deliberately for that matter) disadvantages his side by being a 'lazy runner' and interfering with a seemingly genuine attempt by BLUE to continue their attack, then it's tough, don't be there.

We could campaign for an extension of 10.3
"A player who receives an unintentional throw forward or an unintentional or intentional richochet/or playing of the ball off of a lazy/interferring runner opponent is not offside"

or we could leave the laws alone & apply common sense to a rare scenario.

The problem with common sense is that it isn't a shared definition.

White is a lazy runner, liable to penalty.
Blue, when he regathers the balls, is offisde. That fact is incontrovertible in law.

So, playing advantage for the first offence we come back for a blue PK. The first offence doesn't justify ignoring the second

 

[Dickie E]

The first offence doesn't justify ignoring the second

^^^ this

 

[crossref]

.


Blue, when he regathers the balls, is offisde. That fact is incontrovertible in law.

That's the key issue, and I don't think it is incontrovertible .. it all depends on who you consider last played the ball.

 

[Rich_NL]

That's the key issue, and I don't think it is incontrovertible .. it all depends on who you consider last played the ball.

... intentionally. I think that arguing that being hit in the head by a ball at speed (at least as in the video) is intentionally playing it, is incontrovertibly wrong. However intentionally offside or in touch or off his feet or *anything else* he intentionally may have been - he makes no movement to react and play the ball at all, he's following a straight path back onside. PK for lazy running offside.

 

[DocY]

Is this a change in the latest lawbook? I used to think a player only had to touch the ball, intentionally or not, to play an opponent onside, but the new laws are explicit that it must be intentional.

So without having a lawbook to consult, I'd have given the try, but having checked the book (thanks Dickie E), I'd say there were two offsides, so penalise the lazy runner.

 

[Phil E]

White player is retiring from a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout. He can be penalised for interfeing with play or moving towards the ball.

[LAWS]RETIRING FROM A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
8. A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.
......
10. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
......
b. Interferes with play; or
c. Moves towards the ball.
Sanction: Penalty.[/LAWS]

So PK advantage to Blue. I think everyone agrees so far.


The Blue player who regathers the ball is in front of a team-mate who last played the ball, so is offside and must not interfere with play, this includes playing the ball.

[LAWS]OFFSIDE AND ONSIDE IN OPEN PLAY
1. A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the
ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes:
a. Playing the ball.[/LAWS]

Again, I think everyone agrees that he was offside and played the ball.


So that brings us to did the white player put him onside? This is where people disagree. There is only one relevant law.
(NB This is not a 10.4c situation.)

[LAWS]6. Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:
.....
c. An opponent of that player:
.....
iv. Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.[/LAWS]

Did white intentionally touch the ball?

For me the white player tries to move his head out of the way. That would be an instinctive reaction to seeing the ball come towards your face. So he tried to avoid touching the ball (or have the ball touch him). Had he put his hand up, or leaned towards the balls path to block it, I would say he intentionally tried to touch it, but he did none of these things. I think it's too much of stretch to say he deliberately touched the ball 'because he was there' !

My decision would be PK Blue and possible Yellow card.

 

[ChrisR]

PK and YC seems a bit harsh. The offside player retiring to his own lines has to exist somewhere. I think the laws address it with:

[LAWS]5. A player is accidentally offside if the player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate who is carrying the ball. Only if the offending team gains an advantage should play stop. Sanction: Scrum.
[/LAWS]

For me, a Blue scrum.

 

[Phil E]

PK and YC seems a bit harsh. The offside player retiring to his own lines has to exist somewhere. I think the laws address it with:

For me, a Blue scrum.

NO, there is a specific law to cover lazy runners and the sanction is a PK.

[LAWS]RETIRING FROM A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
8. A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.
......
10. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
......
b. Interferes with play; or
c. Moves towards the ball.
Sanction: Penalty.[/LAWS]

 

[ChrisR]

I think that we agree to his offside status

[LAWS]10. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
a. Fails to retire without undue delay . . . . . . [/LAWS]

. . . . . so what is undue delay?

He has an obligation to retire to an onside position. I think if he runs, takes the most direct route and doesn't loiter, slow down or make an attempt to play the ball we shouldn't PK him.

If Blue hadn't played the ball in an offside position then it would be "Play on!" for me.

 

[Dickie E]

I think that we agree to his offside status

[LAWS]10. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
a. Fails to retire without undue delay . . . . . . [/LAWS]

. . . . . so what is undue delay?

He has an obligation to retire to an onside position. I think if he runs, takes the most direct route and doesn't loiter, slow down or make an attempt to play the ball we shouldn't PK him.

If Blue hadn't played the ball in an offside position then it would be "Play on!" for me.

and some SHs are quite adept at targetting retiring opponents with the ball

 

[didds]

maybe the better approach for an offside players attempting to get back onside is maybe not to do so but to lay float on the ground if its clear he may be likely to end up in a critical position, preferably not in any c&O pass path.

didds

 

[Phil E]

For me, a Blue scrum.

If Blue hadn't played the ball in an offside position then it would be "Play on!" for me.

So you have now gone from Scrum to Play on?

The law for a player retiring from a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout is clear. If he interferes with play, the sanction is a PK.
There are many grey areas in the law, but this isn't one of them. Calling play on from this would lose you all credibility.

 

[Dickie E]

The law for a player retiring from a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout is clear. If he interferes with play, the sanction is a PK.
There are many grey areas in the law, but this isn't one of them. Calling play on from this would lose you all credibility.

Wow. Whether or not a retiring player is interefering with play is as grey as it gets and every situation will be judged on its merit.

 

[crossref]

I think that people are being rather charitable to the offside player , who places himself , illegally, between the oppo 9 and 10 but it's really not his fault that the pass happens to hit him .

I don't buy that . I think he got in the way of the pass intentionally and thus played all his opponent on side

 

[didds]

maybe the better approach for an offside players attempting to get back onside is maybe not to do so but to lay flat on the ground if its clear he may be likely to end up in a critical position, preferably not in any c&O pass path.

didds

 

[DocY]

I think he got in the way of the pass intentionally and thus played all his opponent on side

In which case, that's cynical play, so would you YC him as well as award the try that he helped create? That'll teach him!